Guidelines for the Use of Pavement Warranties on Highway Construction Projects (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 36-44
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 36... ...
Therefore, the decision process for evaluating candidate warranty projects developed under Task 2 is a multilevel tool that enables the user to evaluate both program-level and project-level criteria in addition to evaluating different types of warranties. Furthermore, the guidelines and model specifications developed under Tasks 5, 6, and 7 must address these multiple levels of decision criteria as well.
|
From page 37... ...
These risk ratings were designed to steer the user to a specific type of warranty based on project-level criteria and were developed and refined though the vetting process described in the following section. Vetting Process The warranty decision tool was sent to several representatives with experience using warranties.
|
From page 38... ...
The project scope included a 9.1-mile stretch along the four-lane highway. Colorado reported that the tool determined an 85% success rate and a favorable risk matrix output for a Type 2 warranty.
|
From page 39... ...
Finally, MDOT commented that it does not believe that the manner in which thresholds are established affects the risk rating, regardless of the warranty type. Based on information gathered through literature and interviews, particularly with TxDOT, the research team believes that the level of accuracy of the historical performance data does play a factor in the risk of the warranty.
|
From page 40... ...
Development of Warranty Implementation Guidelines and Model Technical Provisions for HMA and PCC Pavements Chapter 2 used a literature review and workshop and interview results to identify and discuss a number of key issues related to the implementation of pavement warranties. Related issues included warranty objectives or rationale, project selection, performance indicators and distress thresholds, warranty durations, bonding practices, and risk allocation in terms of contract type, responsibility for quality control, inspection, testing, remedial work, and exclusions.
|
From page 41... ...
Developing Warranty Provisions If a DOT already has an established pavement warranty program or provisions and is interested in improving existing practices or transitioning to a longer-term performance warranty, then the DOT would focus primarily on projectspecific considerations and the contents of warranty provisions themselves. Key considerations in the development of warranty provisions are the selection of appropriate performance indicators, establishing appropriate thresholds, and determining the most appropriate monitoring and evaluation plan for the roadway classification and warranty type.
|
From page 42... ...
Based on existing warranty specifications, distress threshold values vary significantly with geographical region, roadway classification and design standards, materials used, and the warranty objectives. The distress thresholds for cracking among other surface distresses used in some of the warranty specifications define multiple thresholds based on levels of severity of distresses described in the Distress Identification Manual (Miller and Bellinger, 2003)
|
From page 43... ...
The FHWA guidance also notes that the content of these elements will vary considerably based on whether the DOT is implementing a materials and workmanship or a performance warranty, an HMA or PCC pavement, or is using an alternative contracting method. For example, the responsibility for quality management activities will shift based on the warranty type and contracting method.
|
From page 44... ...
The research team decided that the model specifications shown in Appendices A3 and A4 would be most useful structured as special provisions/standard supplements to Divisions 400 and 500, but could also be drafted as stand-alone AASHTO-formatted standard pavement specifications. This would allow the flexibility to modify the model warranty specifications based on agency practices, whether the warranty is a Type 1 materials and workmanship or a Type 2 or 3 performance warranty and whether it is written as a special provision or as a standard specification.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.